wHEN i gROW uP.....i'm going to work for a mexican drug cartel

It's fascinating how influences evolve over time. From isolated tribal cultures to regional customs to international religions....and presently media, advertising and computer related memes.

It's also fascinating how, on one hand we can be desensitised to violent and disturbing imagery and on the other actually be disturbed by our preconceptions (which shows just how well brain washing and suggestion can work)

Here is a picture that examines the above statements (Warning, some people may find it disturbing)

www.flickr.com...

There are a couple more images linked to this which, i feel, sum up just how the human experience is shifting from a diverse and natural evolutionary path into a focused and ever narrowing 'virtual' (of our own creation) future.

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly


Listen man, whatever problems you are going through - I'm sure they'll get better, don't resort to swollowing balls of heroin wrapped in plastic.

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

 

Listen man, whatever problems you are going through - I'm sure they'll get better, don't resort to swollowing balls of heroin wrapped in plastic.

:-) Thanks TC, i feel so much better now............or maybe that was the plastic bursting in my digestive tract.

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly


What are the fundamental differences between information space and physical space?

Lately I've been inclined to think that any differences are not fundamental. Consider that they both exist - out there - and we navigate them and have experiences along the way. The information in both virtual space and physical space translate into sensory experiences and concepts. . . If it all ends up in the same place (a person's mind) and all in the same format (pictures and videos are in the same format as visual memories and almost the same format as realtime vision, likewise with audio, words are words, ect.) is there really an important distinction to be made with respect to the source? The mechanisms by which we travel through "virtual space" are certainly different, but they serve the same purpose as there counterparts in physical space. I wonder if the crazy things one finds online (like many topics of discussion on ATS), which so many people believe but which are so completely incongruent with their day to day experiences, aren't like the sea monsters one finds on old maps with the little snake-shaped dragon's back sticking out of the water in humps. We know that this huge space - information space - exists out there and we know that there is a lot of new stuff to be discovered, but we seem so impressed by this idea that we are willing to except almost anything that is new an exciting that we find out here, no matter how rediculous. One could suggest that this openess is a result of the relative safety that occupants of the information space enjoy there, but I think that the similar prevelance of wild ideas about unexplored lands that were widely accepted in the past points towards a deep likeness between the two.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

 

What are the fundamental differences between information space and physical space?

We physically live and survive in physical space. I'd say the difference is similar to the difference between theory and practice.

Lately I've been inclined to think that any differences are not fundamental. Consider that they both exist - out there - and we navigate them and have experiences along the way. The information in both virtual space and physical space translate into sensory experiences and concepts. . . If it all ends up in the same place (a person's mind) and all in the same format (pictures and videos are in the same format as visual memories and almost the same format as realtime vision, likewise with audio, words are words, ect.) is there really an important distinction to be made with respect to the source? The mechanisms by which we travel through "virtual space" are certainly different, but they serve the same purpose as there counterparts in physical space. I wonder if the crazy things one finds online (like many topics of discussion on ATS), which so many people believe but which are so completely incongruent with their day to day experiences, aren't like the sea monsters one finds on old maps with the little snake-shaped dragon's back sticking out of the water in humps. We know that this huge space - information space - exists out there and we know that there is a lot of new stuff to be discovered, but we seem so impressed by this idea that we are willing to except almost anything that is new an exciting that we find out here, no matter how rediculous. One could suggest that this openess is a result of the relative safety that occupants of the information space enjoy there, but I think that the similar prevelance of wild ideas about unexplored lands that were widely accepted in the past points towards a deep likeness between the two.

They both exist all be it in a different part of the spectrum. It may even turn out that information space is more important to our long term survival .If for example we imagine the scenario of having to 'exist' in outer space after the solar system ceases to support us. We may find that the only way to survive, to remain concious, is to 'be' a computer program or encoded information shot out into space in a laser beam. Physicality, as we know it, may also be a finite existence. In that respect information space has an enormous, maybe infinite scope although when we talk about non physical information we also open up a pandoras box of possible chaotic and random information/experience and there lies total madness. At least, to some extent, physical existence is based 'more' on the laws of physics and therefore order.

Thanks for your reply, very thought provoking. I may have to reply further when ive had a bit more time to think about it ;-)

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly

We physically live and survive in physical space. I'd say the difference is similar to the difference between theory and practice.

They both exist all be it in a different part of the spectrum. It may even turn out that information space is more important to our long term survival .If for example we imagine the scenario of having to 'exist' in outer space after the solar system ceases to support us. We may find that the only way to survive, to remain concious, is to 'be' a computer program or encoded information shot out into space in a laser beam. Physicality, as we know it, may also be a finite existence. In that respect information space has an enormous, maybe infinite scope although when we talk about non physical information we also open up a pandoras box of possible chaotic and random information/experience and there lies total madness. At least, to some extent, physical existence is based 'more' on the laws of physics and therefore order.

Thanks for your reply, very thought provoking. I may have to reply further when ive had a bit more time to think about it ;-)

We do happen to live in physical space, but as you suggest, we may be able to carry on our lives in information space once we are able to do away with our monkey bodies. It seems to me that the critical element is the human mind, and as far as I can tell, the mind can interact with both physical and information space in essentially the same way(exactly the same way if we had the right tools). The fact that the notion of uploading ourselves and living in information space is even conceivable to us indicates that physical space and information space are essentially interchangable. As far as I can tell, for the purposes of a mind, reality is made of information. The information that makes up the information space and the information that underlies the physical space are apparently interchangable.

I would argue that no spectrum exists. We certainly feel differently about physical space, but I'm open to the possibility that that's just an artifact of our evolution. It may be that with the proper neural modification, information space could be experienced spacially. On the other hand, one of the neat things about information space is that we don't have to deal with vast physical distances. Everything moves at the speed of light here, it may not be helpful to actually experience information space as space in the way that we experience physical space as space. (Although I suspect it would lead to awesome new technologies.)

As for where we survive being the key distinction, I think that just happens to be how it is. We could just as easily have been born into a Matrix like reality (or perhaps in the future we will insert ourselves in a utopian matrix-like reality) in which case we really would live in the information space. I think the space that we occupy is not one of the particularily interesting aspects of being a human. Are land and sea fundamentally different because we live on land? That's a weak comparison, but perhaps you see what I'm getting at. The land and sea are equally real regions of reality, as, I believe, is the information space.

One curious bit about information space is that we construct it's contents. There's nothing stopping us from being god in that dimension. I think it's revealing that given a universe of unlimited possibilities and the opportunity to construct from the ground up a vast region of reality, we first and foremost flooded the void with porn. . .

Your analogy about theory are practice is an interesting one. Theory is an informational representation of some feature of physical reality, and practice is the physical manifestation of some information structure. To what extent do theories like physics formulae exist? There are mathematical structures identified by physics that correspond to (almost) everything that happens. It is as though these mathematical equations are somehow embedded in the fabric of reality, such that every process that occurs (at least above the quantum scale) is bound by these equations and will always obey them. I can't figure out how, when I drop my pen, it knows to start accelerating at 9.8ms^2. And are we to believe that the precise correspondance between everything that occurs in reality and the physical laws describing them is a cooincidence? Why are there be simple mathematical structures that describe everything that ever happens? It seems as though physical laws actually exist and are manifest everywhere in reality, and that these laws - whatever they were before we came along and found out about them - exist "out there" somewhere for us to discover. The formula e=mc^2 was discovered, not invented. It already existed somehow; it was true before we knew it was true. When we discover these laws, we discover them in information space (math) and they appear to exist only as informational structures. Are they merely theories? Or are they a kind of object that is difficult for us to conceptualize, but an object none the less?

This is an interesting conversation, thanks for the thread.

reply to post by OnceReturned


Within information space we can learn to rock climb, but that knowledge has a limited transferability in reality as, we need physical muscles, food etc to manifest the information. Sure, we could climb an information-space cliff face, but not one that existed in reality. Also the cliff face in reality is highly unlikely, through the force of my mind alone, to become soft or turn into a infinitely complex fractal as it could in information space.

Its as if there are 2 distinct types of information, one that is subservient to our will and another which we have to obey.

I dont see a problem with experiencing information space as we do physical space, infact, if we placed limitations upon how we could interact with the information it may even be indistinguishable from reality. Reality may actually be information with added restrictions ! Still, that doesnt change our present experience of them being different entities and they are equal only conceptually.

Theories, as they exist in information space, are constructs of our real world experiences so i dont feel it is coincidental that parallels exist. What interest me about information space though is to take the familiar and change the parameters whilst retaining control of both sanity and coherence. The scope is phenomenal.

But....most people, imo, dont think this way so we finish up with psychotic people who have been influenced by a combination of their personal experiences of reality and others engineered information, released into the public domain as news stories (intended only to sell rather than inform), computer games, capitalism, ideologies...etc. Sure, there has been religions and spirituality for a long time in human istory, but those have evolved alongside our need to interact with the environment and, as such, have made more sense, been more useful.

There's some crazy shizzle going on at the moment and it may be because its part of our evolution, some grand attractor in the future moulding us to how we need to be......Or it may not. It may be because we are reaching the end of an evolutionary path.

Third option- The human race is splitting into 2 new evolutionary branches, those that will learn to re-evolve within the real world environment and those that will download their conciousness and exist in a totally different realm.

wHEN i gROW uP.....i'm going to work for a mexican drug cartel

Have you ever tried to pass a 8 ball in a condom?
Me neither and aint going to

Originally posted by hillbilly4rent

wHEN i gROW uP.....i'm going to work for a mexican drug cartel

Have you ever tried to pass a 8 ball in a condom?
Me neither and aint going to

My eyes are watering

I just wanted to be on a mexican radio